Sounds about right. How dare they have a sign that offends our dear lobbied MPs.
How predictabley regressive, fuck the torys, scum out.
Interestingly having skimmed the article the sign they use in the headline photo is not the one she was convicted for.
> Warner, who witnessed some of the trials, sat outside Inner London crown court holding a sign that read: “Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”
>
> She was committed to the Old Bailey for contempt of court proceedings, where a high court judge referred the case to Tomlinson, to decide whether to pursue contempt proceedings or charge her with attempting to pervert the course of justice. He wrote to Warner last Thursday to say he had decided to prosecute her for contempt of court.
Should people be able to placard the courts, and hold signs to influence Jurors?
Absolutely not, that undermines the rule of law.
**As a separate issue:**
>She protested after a judge imposed restrictions on defendants in a series of climate trials that prevented them from mentioning **climate change**, insulation, fuel poverty or **their motivations for taking action** during their trials. The civil rights group Liberty labelled the restrictions “deeply concerning”.
The fuck are these restrictions on defendants who are on trial due to climate protests?
You may not mention in your defence anything to do with why you are protesting?
The fuck!?! That’s a judge that needs investigating.
Good to see the solicitor general going after little old ladies concerned about the climate rather then prosecuting the PPE embezzlers and the track and trace bandits that stole billions from the public coffers.
Its almost as if shaming intimidating or otherwise attempting to influence a jury has been a crime for literal centuries and none of us should be surprised by this….
Considering the actions of the court, I would say contempt is the only rational response.
> She protested after a judge imposed restrictions on defendants in a series of climate trials that prevented them from mentioning climate change, insulation, fuel poverty or their motivations for taking action during their trials. The civil rights group Liberty labelled the restrictions “deeply concerning”.
> Several people who ignored the judge’s restrictions have been jailed for contempt of court. Amy Pritchard and Giovanna Lewis, who were both jailed for seven weeks after they ignored the judge’s ruling not to mention climate change in their address to the jury, are appealing against their conviction for contempt of court.
It is essential that defendants are allowed to detail their motivation for committing an offence as part of their defence. Without that, the jury cannot come to a full and complete just judgement. Raising your motivations in court should not be contempt of court, that is absurd as the judge restricting one from using certain pronouns, or beginning sentences with a preposition.
> Warner, who witnessed some of the trials, sat outside Inner London crown court holding a sign that read: “Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”
Informing jurors of the right to jury nullification is not perverting the course of justice, that is informing jurors of their rights. As an established part of law it’s entirely just that juries use it. That sign does not attempt to convince jurors to find defendants guilty or not guilty, it is like holding up a sign that says “you can disagree with other jurors” or “in Scotland you can also say “not proven””
8 comments
Sounds about right. How dare they have a sign that offends our dear lobbied MPs.
How predictabley regressive, fuck the torys, scum out.
Interestingly having skimmed the article the sign they use in the headline photo is not the one she was convicted for.
> Warner, who witnessed some of the trials, sat outside Inner London crown court holding a sign that read: “Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”
>
> She was committed to the Old Bailey for contempt of court proceedings, where a high court judge referred the case to Tomlinson, to decide whether to pursue contempt proceedings or charge her with attempting to pervert the course of justice. He wrote to Warner last Thursday to say he had decided to prosecute her for contempt of court.
Should people be able to placard the courts, and hold signs to influence Jurors?
Absolutely not, that undermines the rule of law.
**As a separate issue:**
>She protested after a judge imposed restrictions on defendants in a series of climate trials that prevented them from mentioning **climate change**, insulation, fuel poverty or **their motivations for taking action** during their trials. The civil rights group Liberty labelled the restrictions “deeply concerning”.
The fuck are these restrictions on defendants who are on trial due to climate protests?
You may not mention in your defence anything to do with why you are protesting?
The fuck!?! That’s a judge that needs investigating.
Good to see the solicitor general going after little old ladies concerned about the climate rather then prosecuting the PPE embezzlers and the track and trace bandits that stole billions from the public coffers.
Its almost as if shaming intimidating or otherwise attempting to influence a jury has been a crime for literal centuries and none of us should be surprised by this….
Considering the actions of the court, I would say contempt is the only rational response.
> She protested after a judge imposed restrictions on defendants in a series of climate trials that prevented them from mentioning climate change, insulation, fuel poverty or their motivations for taking action during their trials. The civil rights group Liberty labelled the restrictions “deeply concerning”.
> Several people who ignored the judge’s restrictions have been jailed for contempt of court. Amy Pritchard and Giovanna Lewis, who were both jailed for seven weeks after they ignored the judge’s ruling not to mention climate change in their address to the jury, are appealing against their conviction for contempt of court.
It is essential that defendants are allowed to detail their motivation for committing an offence as part of their defence. Without that, the jury cannot come to a full and complete just judgement. Raising your motivations in court should not be contempt of court, that is absurd as the judge restricting one from using certain pronouns, or beginning sentences with a preposition.
> Warner, who witnessed some of the trials, sat outside Inner London crown court holding a sign that read: “Jurors: you have an absolute right to acquit a defendant according to your conscience.”
Informing jurors of the right to jury nullification is not perverting the course of justice, that is informing jurors of their rights. As an established part of law it’s entirely just that juries use it. That sign does not attempt to convince jurors to find defendants guilty or not guilty, it is like holding up a sign that says “you can disagree with other jurors” or “in Scotland you can also say “not proven””